Thanks for the question. Basically most microsites when created become orphans soon after there creation. If the ideas are so good then why not bring those ideas into your main web site? By creating a smaller little section you may be attempting to service a particular group, but in the end that particular group is probably way better served as a section on your main site. (one of the things that “defines” what is a “microsite” is that it has a separate URL.) The microsite you create may serve that particular group well but you have the burden of managing an ever expanding world of URL’s, advertising and marketing them etc… all which end up confusing the consumer about your brand.

Now granted there are plenty of reasons for creating a microsite that are warranted, most notably those that are done for a temporal event, with a specific contained timeframe. The NCAA basketball tournament, the Olympics, a movie release. All of those have a specific contained timeframe when you want to push people towards learning, viewing, and consuming specific content, however, the sites become mostly useless after the event. Therefore it’s easier to abandon the microsite URL, and just redirect it to your main site after the event.

It’s just that I caution against microsites unless their creation is done under the umbrella of a sound digital strategy. i.e. some companies create microsites to enhance their “social graph.” (the ability for a search engines like Google or others to crawl them and create many more touch points for their brand that are interwoven together, and thus a higher chance that someone will come across you.) This is a great use for microsites, but it’s based in a sound digital strategic reason why, AND you must have an understanding of how search engines work in order to really justify, and capitalize on it. For example if this was the strategy,”Adobe Flash,” while a great deign tool and prominent all over the web for viewing video and graphics, would not be used as search engines do not effectively “read” the information n Flash files.

Hopefully this provides some more direction.

In your article about microsites you mentioned that you should use your ideas for a microsite and bring it to your main site. Exactly what do you mean by this? I have just recently heard about microsites and would appreciate to know their benefits and risks of having on.

Thank you,
Haley Howell

Haley Howell
hahowell@suffolkl.edu

Thanks for commenting.

I would actually categorize that use of microsites as not only acceptable, but a good use of technology and the ‘net. The issue of my original rant was that many corporate websites are just a poor reflection of their internal structure, and not designed for the consumer need-states. It is the consumer need-state that is most important in the communication decision. Many agencies use “microsites” and “macrosites” as merely a way to get around the internal approval processes within companies, with the result being rogue islands that remain unsupported.

So, if a particular market is underserved by a business, and the purpose of the microsite is to service those customers, then it is not only good, but warranted. Just be careful that the creation of one is not being justified out of internal ego, and using the external group as a proxy for it.

As examples, there are several parallel sites that often get created that are of great use to the consumers as it serves their need state. e.g. A version for iPhones browsing to a site (goto http://m.calacademy.org/home.php from an iPhone.) This is not the full site, but a microsite customized to the need-state of those with iPhones. Another good usage would be a version of a site for the visually impaired or older audiences for whom larger font sizes would be necessary.

A BAD usage would be to imagine that within the California Academy that the people that handle the penguin exhibit want to create a site of their own because they have their own budget, but that Penguin lovers are served by the main site (just not to the degree the penguin group want it to be.) That would be ill advised, as it’s creation is for the ego’s of the Penguin group, and not the actual need-state of those they serve.

If however, you happened to be talking about a bank, and a group of underserved is the under-banked market. (Those without bank accounts who cash their checks at money places that gouge them) AND the bank had a specific product that served that market, then the creation of a microsite would be warranted.

Make sense?

If you don’t want to disclose those thoughts that is understandable, but if you could work it into an article, I think that could be just as good of a read as your rant against microsites.

Dan Counts
dan_counts71@yahoo.com

BTW Sean, how about a longer post next time. ; )

Perhaps we could start a conversation about joining forces along these lines? -drop me a note back if you agree…

Branding = hope? I thought affiliating with a brand = conformity?

While the act of choosing to affiliate, or align, with a brand may give someone a temporary “sense” of hope, that sense may certainly prove to be much more temporary than long lasting, much less being “true” (true = true = consistency over time). Satisfaction with any brand (that isn’t “true”) will only wane over time and ends with significant dissatisfaction by the consumer with that very brand.

Consumers who look to a brand for true fulfillment of hope in their lives are only bound to be disappointed and any brand that sets itself up to attempt to deliver on their customer’s “hope” (hope as currency?) is destined to be known as a failure.